Forum posts made by elitfromnorth

Can we have a category called SWAWCWDTMADTMDTWUGUCMTMOHDWTOTBAAHTKGDWSCSOCDWHAOASLPGTILF ?

" She was a wild child who drank too much and did too many drugs then woke up, got under control, married the man of her dreams who turned out to be an asshole, had 3 kids, got divorced, went sex crazy, sort of calmed down, works her ass off and still looks pretty good that Id like to Fuck"

NO! That would be excluding those who:Wasn't a wild childDidn't do drugsMarried a womanHad no kids, less than 3 or more than 3Still married or widowed.As medium sex cravingsStill fucking nutsLazy bum woman Looks only semi good or looks badYou'd only fuck after half a bottle of tequila

What do Golda Meir(Israel), Indira Gandhi(India) and Margaret Thatcther(Great Britain) have in common?They were all heads of state and led their countries into war (with Egypt, Pakistan and Argentina respectfully)

The trouble with politicians is that they are politicians first...

So you think Maggie Thatcher should just have sat back and watched Argentina invade a part of Britain where a vast majority of the population want to stay under British rule?

This is the typical outsider looking in, but it seems that the US is a society where you shouldn't need to use common sense in order to get by. When you can sue the microwave company because it didn't say "Don't dry your cat in the microwave"(maybe that one is just an urban myth, but no smoke without fire) then you get a feeling that on the statue of liberty where it says "Give us your sick, your poor and your hungry" they forgot to put on "and those who can't fucking think for themselves".

As for the McDonalds lawsuit I saw a documentary that the old lady won because the temperature of the coffee was 90 degrees celsius, while the Maccy guidelines says it should be 70. For those of you that don't do centigrade, water freezes at 0 and boils at 100.

And if the money comes from the congress? Because that's what happened here. If you read the article you'll see how pro gun people managed to choke money from the congress to research on gun violence. Does that mean that all government funded research is worth nothing and that because of that we can't trust any research done in the US? Because that's how you come off.

And where are all the pro gun people in this? Surely they'd be interested in this research too. After all, they're so damn sure that there is no corrolation between the amount of guns in homes and the level of violence that thourogh research on this would confirm their theories. Not to mention; why won't they distance themselves from the actions of the NRA and Pro Gunners. Does that mean you condone the action of threatening researcher's families as long as you get to keep your guns?

It tells a bit about gun research done and partly also why there haven't been any broad studies into the whole range of gun ownership and violence. The two main points that I think are crucial in this article are these two things.

1) Research showed that homes with guns had three times greater risks of homocide and five times the risks of suicide. In other words, yes, you might feel a bit safer from intruders, but you're still more likely to have a homocide occur in your house thanks to the 9mm under your bed.

Of course, I don't think this study is at all conclusive on whether or nut guns create more suicides or anything like that, BUT the results from this study really do cry out for more research to be done on the matter.

2) The NRA and their buddie's way of censoring research that might not go their way. One thing is if they go out and say that this research might not be good or actually use civilised methods, but using their channels to choke funding, slander the scientists that wanted to do the research and in some cases even threatening their families. I hear the extremists call out that by gun control will be a first step towards a dictatorish government, but the way I see it you already have several organisations causing a communist/nazi like censorship of anything they don't agree with and might hurt their cause.

reliable, I can rely on them to vote themself a raise as our country is in economic distress.consistent, Consistantly grid locked never making any useful changestruthful, Their politicians, if there lips move their lieing. The one you trust is just the better liar.calm, Have you ever watched a session of congress.

Now Grog go teach Phoenix about sarcasm and irony. Grog realise this might be tough. Grog relentless. Grog make big effort for tribe....

I don't consider it derogatory at all, but then again, I don't fit into that category.

Matriarch ILF :-"

As for the term MILF I don't really see a problem with it. I hear countless women talking about how they're afraid of losing their figure after giving birth and being unattractive and all that. Surely being told that yes, your stomach blew out like a baloon and you squeezed a kid out of your vag and you may still have stretchmarks or whatever, but I still wanna fuck you, is a compliment? How many women have complained about being called a MILF?

As for Silverback, I think it's fucking awesome as a term. If it wasn't for the fact that I'm 26 I'd ask to be called a Silverback, simply because it would be one of the more inventive nicknames I've had during my time

They're delaying Hillary so they know she's done with menopause. Imagine a PMSing angry woman with a nuke button. I say let men rule. We have shown through history that we're reliable, consistent, truthful and calm....

Ludicrous. As long as they had a written contract it doesn't matter if it was written on paper made from safran or a napkin from the local pub. As long as it's a written agreement where both parties sign it's valid. That goes for oral agreements as well. If there are witnesses that can say that "Yes, these two were sane and agreed on this" it's valid. It is a typical situation where ideology plays in.

As for the economic part; I dunno how child welfare works in Kansas. Over here it's as long as you have a kid you get some money no matter your financial situation. And what's wrong with using Craigslist? Who knows how much the clinics charge for you getting a kid. Some spend thousands of bucks to get it done, and that's just too big of an expense in short time. It really shouldn't matter in what way they got the kid. They both agreed that he shouldn't have any responsibility on the matter. End of.

Although what always makes me shake my head when it comes to the US; jump across the border and have it done in a shady motel in a different state and it's perfectly ok, while do it in your home it becomes a problem. THAT is what is most ludicrous in this case.

Doubt nukes will be used. As mental as the Pakistani government is, they're fully aware of that deploying nukes will lead to not only India answering with Nukes, but the rest of the world realising that they have a nuclear power who's unstable enough to nuke it. Result; mass scale international invasion where the only object is to remove nuclear technology from Pakistan. And using the nukes will make China really nervous. Who would want an unstable neighbour with nukes? You could really end up with a UN invasion led by China, Russia and the US. Would make for a really interesting scene though.

Can violent videogames make people more aggressive? Certainly at the moment while you're playing it and getting killed at the same spot time and time again, surely the frustration level rises. I know. Will it make you more aggressive over time? That's a difficult question to answer, as it's difficult to say who is attracted to violent games. More aggressive people are more likely to have an outlet through violent games, so I think the studies will be difficult to conclude with a certain answer.

But the question isn't the level of aggression in my book. The question is does violent video games make you more prone to commit acts of violence. That's the issue. Not how aggressive people are. People can still be angry and aggressive without actually doing anything. There's a reason we have the phrase "all talk and no walk".

Besides, if people were actually doing their jobs as parents there wouldn't be a need for a study asking how GTA and COD and Assassin's Creed affect 13yo's. It states clearly on the box, even if it in many countries isn't mandatory, that these games should not be played by people younger than 18. I'm not saying that parents put the guns in the hands of the kids, but if you're so worried that you're kid's gonna be affected by it why the hell don't you have a look at what he's gaming instead of just lashing out. The computer isn't a babysitter, and it's your responsibility to make sure that your 13yo isn't playing GTA or watching porn. And stop having grandma buying games that she doesn't know a thing about.

On another note, when denying kids the game one argument will of course be "But everyone else has it" while another will be "But it's just a game! Of course I know it's wrong to kill people".

There are a few guys who actually dont have pain receptors in the groin area, resulting in kicks and punches to the groin results in a hard on, but it's rare. The rest of us flinches in pain just from the thought of having them squeezed.

As for spanking and scratch marks, go for it. I love nails. Tying up is good too.'

The only reason you're not seeing them is because you probably don't frequent any of the multitude of firearms-oriented websites like ar15 dot com and The Firing Line. Many millions of words have been posted in criticism of the subject. The "Tin Foil Hat Brigade" is prominently represented, but trust me, there are thousands of regular people that are now saying, "See? This is precisely WHY we need our 2nd Amendment rights!"

I don't see the NRA or the congressmen advocating the need for guns using that line of argument. Maybe because they know that it has nothing to do with "protecting" yourself against the vicious and mean federal government.

In the US it's almost impossible to get a full dictatorial government or getting right wing fascist governments, simply due to your two party political system. Add to the fact that republican party needs to become more liberal if they're to get minority voters then you have successfully removed any chance for a Hitler type to run your country.

I think I might have agreed to it, but a minimum demand is that I get the drawing I think is the best for my own keeping so I can perv on it later. It also depends where this is. If it's the local college then I think I would oppose it. Call me weird.

Don't think it would be at all possible unless it's semi hard, but like Nudiepants said; where's the fun in that? I would only at best be able to reach the rim and if I got aroused I would get harder and then it wouldn't be possible. Don't think it's anatomically possible.

You do realize that one of the first things the Nazis did when they were elected was pass a law that took the guns out of the hands of their intended victims...

And you have so little faith in your own government that you think that gun control will be a move to either be able to exterminate black people or create a tyrannic dictatorship?

Hell, with the ways things are progressing it would be more "effective" in the way of reducing the number of ethnic people in the US by making sure gangs get a lot of weapons so they can kill each other and the civilians off. Besides, white people are quicker to shout racism than coloured people. We're not stuck in the 60's anymore

As far as cashing in goes in the way this is done, it's really no surprise. Sadly. One person's death is another person's living. People will do all kinds of things, like selling "memorial stuff" to "honour the victims". They just don't say that one of the victims is their wallet that needs to be honoured with cash. The world is getting more and more cynical. Thanks to internet we can perform crimes without actually having to meet the person that suffers in real life. easier and you don't have to be that skilled or gutsy to do it. There will always be people trying to profit off of misery and death. It's human nature. Some see sorrow, others see opportunities.

Very unsure if I could go through with an MMF threesome. Considering that my confidence level isn't sky high and that I'm prone to paranoid thoughts I would instead of enjoying fucking my GF be thinking and analysing every sound and thing she does to see if he makes her feel better than I do. Should I come to that conclusion I would probably not fare all that well and feel less of a man. To me it's one of those things I would struggle to recover from no matter how many times she'd tell me that I satisfy her every need. The whole thing would probably be a very bad idea.

But let's just say for the sake of argument that I do have the confidence to go through with it. Would I then be able to have a dude suck me off? Depends on how great I would be able to focus on her. If I was to focus on "there's a dude sucking my dick" then I'd probably lose my hard on and that would be no fun for anyone. But that could only be as long as the dude is out of sight out of mind and not making deep dark moaning sounds...

As for me sucking him off. No way. There's a line and that's well and thouroghly crossing it.

Our findings , and the fact that many adolescents play video games for several hours every day, underscore the need for a greater understanding of the long-term relation between violent video games and aggression

in other words they have not made a definite conclusion that video games really do cause aggressive behaviour amongst kids. They saw evidence of it, but one study of one group of kids is far from enough to be able to make the connection. Secondly; how do we know that kids that are aggressive aren't more prone to choosing violent video games? A happy relaxed girl will go play Mario while an angry boy will go play Call Of Duty. Add to the fact that such a study wouldn't be needed if parents actually gave a damn about what their kids do. Next time you're in a shop that sells games or you're near one, go check out a couple of the games in the shelf. Check how long it takes you to see the markings that says what the game contains of violence, language etc AND the recommended minimum age for playing it is. Doubt it will take you too long.

And it's ludicrous to see the arguments being thrown around that you need the guns to defend yourself from the government. Bullocks. You make yourself sound like a conspiracy nut when you say that the government is coming after you. "They're gonna take my guns, then they're gonna take my car, then they're gonna take my voting right!". If that was the corrolation then Europe would be full of dictatorships.

gr8guy2; you are soooo off the mark when you say "Don't call the police if you don't like the 2nd ammendment". The police, or the law enforcement, use guns to do their job; law enforcement, NOT because all of them are really great fans of the 2nd ammendment. It's not the 2nd ammendment that gives them the right to carry weapons. You arguments are so weak they make me firmer in my belief that gun control is the right thing.

I'm saying that with today's technology we'll never know. Technology speeds forward at an increadible rate so when I'm an old man we might be able to travel fast enough to have holidays on Mars(for the really filthy rich people).

The statisics are based on that there's such and such big chance for there to be a planet that can sustain life(as we know it) and there is so and so chance for a meteor to strike said planet with molecules that can form amino acids and so forth. The chances for there being life on one given planet is small, but considering all the billions and trillions of stars and planets in our universe the chance becomes better the more we discover.

That said, a life on a different planet doesn't have to follow the same rules as we do. Considering the diversity of that animals, insects and plants can survive on our planet, in regards to temperature and other conditions, how can we exclude that there is life that can live with much higher or lower temperatures than ours?

By saying there's life on other planets doesn't automatically make it into being creatures with Star Wars technology. It can be something as simple as basic micro organisms that are stuck in some muddy pond in a different galaxy. Also consider the technology that would be required to travel through space. Most of the more earth like planets are millions of lightyears away, which means you would have to travel a whole lot faster than the speed of light to be able to reach it in one generation.

We have barely started exploring our neighbouring planet Mars. We're still not sure if there's something as simple as water on it. Who knows what was on Mars 10 million years ago. And the reason we don't have hard evidence is simply because we're just getting at the technology that's capable of looking for hard evidence.

Statistically with all the stars and planets that is in our massive universe, there is life on other planets. However how far they've evolved and if they've evolved at all is a different that is merely speculation. No one has ever said they have hard evidence on extra terrestrial life.

The arguments you put forth sound like something a religious fanatic would say in defence of the Bible being 6000 years old and that there is no other life than what God created here on Earth...

Jogging on paved roads or sidewalks isn't good for you, no matter how good your shoes are. With great shoes it will only take a bit longer before you start feeling it in the knees and ankles. I even have custom made soles that I put in my shoes, but jogging fucks up my knees straight away, as long as it's on paved roads or sidewalks. Going cross country is much better if you can. The ground or grass is softer to your knees and the terrain will give you a different type of excercise where you may have to use your legs in a different way than if you were to just run on a flat road.

I've deleted stories for various artistic or personal reasons and would like to know I could 'dis-own' stories in the future. I often re-write or throw things away. To not be allowed to do so seems Orwellian and anti creativity. I would have to think long and hard before posting anything again, if I knew I could never change my mind. Otherwise I'd have to delete my entire account and change my pen name as the only way of distancing myself from a story I no longer wanted to represent me, (although I suppose I could always 'edit' all the words).

I appreciate the time and effort Moderators devote to helping us, but If you are going to institute this, please give us some warning...

...Or maybe I just need an explanation of the 'Hide' function. Is it like deciding not to throw my garbage out, just hide it underneath the bed and in the closet?

Pretty much like this, apart from the foul smell and the rats. And if you really want your story removed then all you need to do is send a PM to the right people and they'll zapp it for you. It's not like a situation where "you submit it, we own it!", but it's more to avoid people submitting the same story over and over and over again.

Great how people compare with the prohibition on booze. Good to see that you have such faith in the police, the men and women that go on the job risking their lives every day to make your life safer, that you think they'll be just as corrupt and disorganized as in the 20's.

And for those that want armed teachers: are you guys fucking mental??? What's gonna stop an angry student to hit a teacher from behind, grab the gun and start shooting wild. If you mean locked down in each classroom then keys can be stolen. Don't think the schools will be able to afford biometric scanners. And what's to stop a teacher going postal with a gun he can have right there? For fuck's sake...

Seems like most pro gun people in here seem to be guaranteed that this man had all this planned days in advance and even if there had been stricter rules considering guns he would just have planned this further.

Fact; you don't know whether this was a spontaneous act or if it was planned.

Fact; if this was a spontaneous act he probably wouldn't have gotten his hands on guns if the laws had been stricter, it certainly would have made things more difficult.

Fact; many of these terrible tragedies not to mention those that take "only" one or two lives(which is one or two too many) would have been avoided had there been stricter gun control. Why? Because they are crimes of opportunity, where there's an opportunity to easily acquire a gun.

And as far as Assault rifles vs pistols goes, I guess it goes without saying that higher the calibre and the bigger the clip then the more lethal it is. An AK-47 round at close range will probably tear off a kids arm, making what's usually a non-lethal hit suddenly lethal, compared to a 9mm bullet. In many cases it's only a matter of milimeters that differes from life or death. With a smaller clip, lower fire-rate and less penetrative ammunition lives could be spared. You can't argue against it.